How much memory do most have?

I've got 12GB and I bought it when DDR3 was new to the market and expensive! Man I hate when I do that! It's cheap now and I would say 6GB should be the minimum noadays no matter what you do with your computer.
 
6gb. Probably gonna get it up to 12gb sometime.
 
8GB DDR3 in my laptop I use most of the time when at home (4GB was perfect, but it didn't leave much for VM's)
8GB DDR3 in my HTPC/gaming system (just upgraded from 4GB for the hell of it.. figured it'll help with compressing Blu Ray rips)
16GB DDR3 in my ESXi system
4GB DDR3 in my work laptop (wish this had 8GB sometimes)

Upgraded to 4GB DDR3 in my wife's laptop, and I also put 4GB DDR2 into the system I built for my parents early this year. 4GB is perfect for an average user who rarely shuts down/restarts the computer.

All of the above machines run Win7 x64 with the exception of the ESXi machine of course.

After upgrading my main HTPC, I've got 4GB left over now laying around that I'll likely use to build HTPC #2 around an AMD E-350 for our bedroom eventually.
 
Last edited:
8GB

Stone Cold said:
2GB RAM is enough for the occasional game or HD video. It's a rare game that recommends more than 2GB (I'm not aware of any game that requires more than 2GB). Games and HD video depend on throughput more than quantity of RAM, that's why consoles aren't designed with much RAM (the current generation of consoles are designed with only 0.5GB).

We're a long way off from needing more than 2GB. Win8 supposedly uses less memory than Win7.

4GB is the sweet spot for RAM. It gives you some headroom over 2GB, without a significant increase in price. 8GB is cheap, but it's also significantly more in cost than 4GB, without any added benefit. If you really want to spend an extra $20, pay your woman for some milk. It'll make her feel valued. If she argues that it makes her feel cheap, point out that it's not as cheap as the free milk she has been giving out.
Click to expand...

LOL, I can't believe no one has commented on this yet.
 
I didnt keep up with the thread, but ya, that is a pretty stupid statement. I just bumped to 24gb because I was consistantly getting under 200mb available with 12gb installed...
 
Hostile said:
LOL, I can't believe no one has commented on this yet.
Click to expand...

I'll give it a try.

Stone Cold said:
2GB RAM is enough for the occasional game or HD video. It's a rare game that recommends more than 2GB (I'm not aware of any game that requires more than 2GB). Games and HD video depend on throughput more than quantity of RAM, that's why consoles aren't designed with much RAM (the current generation of consoles are designed with only 0.5GB).

We're a long way off from needing more than 2GB. Win8 supposedly uses less memory than Win7.

4GB is the sweet spot for RAM. It gives you some headroom over 2GB, without a significant increase in price. 8GB is cheap, but it's also significantly more in cost than 4GB, without any added benefit.
Click to expand...

I disagree here. With 2GB Vista and 7 are simply sluggish, and swap a lot and generally very unpleasant to use. I would say that 4GB should be considered the minimum for any new build today.

Most games don't use more than 2GB themselves, that is true, but that is 2GB on top of whatever else might be running, including the operating system, any caching and anti-virus, etc. etc.

The experience is simply going to be frustrating at the 2GB level, and smoother at the 4GB level.

Over 4GB the differences for most people start to become a little academic. At the 4GB level for most desktop and gaming use, you can usually load your programs without having to worry about swapping, or forcing out any significant amount of caching and slowing the system down.

When I build new systems for people I usually go with 8GB, just to make sure I have enough headroom should they start becoming heavy photoshop users, or doing anything else like that. Just to give that extra little bit of assurance that RAM quantity will never limit your performance. it also safeguards against future RAM requirements, just in case this increases faster than it has in the past.

Going from 4GB to 8GB only adds ~$15 if you shop smart too, so it really isn't a big deal cost wise.

In my personal rig I have 16GB. Why? Because RAM is so cheap and I can.

Have I ever needed it? Probably not, but I might have come pretty close with a few VM's I ran a while back. Definitely not on a regular basis though.

Stone Cold said:
If you really want to spend an extra $20, pay your woman for some milk. It'll make her feel valued. If she argues that it makes her feel cheap, point out that it's not as cheap as the free milk she has been giving out.
Click to expand...

Other than being somewhat chauvinist and making you look like a douche, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here.

Firstly, there is no "your woman". Just like men can't be owned, neither can women. we are all people with human rights that guarantee that we be free to govern ourselves and seek our own destinies. Using possessive language here only makes you look like an ass.

Secondly, I'm guessing this milk business is some cultural phenomenon or something wherever you are from. I certainly don't get it at all. :confused:
 
Desktop: 16gb
Laptop: 8gb (max)

Why? VMs and Visual Studio 2010. These things consume resources.
(I am admittedly running a whole 2008 domain + SQL server in VMs for VS2010 purposes)
 
I have 8 GB DDR2 1066 in my PC, i use up to about 5 gb when running a game like A-10C.
 
I have 8GB of RAM, but at the time it was so cheap ($55 vs $50 for 4GB) it was not a hard decision to make.
 
8GB's, I thought 4GB would be enough and it was for the most part, but occasionally it wasn't.
 
16GB. I figured "why the hell not" when I bought my 2600k. Don't use more than a fraction of it unless my VMs are up (must run them ole' Mac/XP only games!) or if 3ds max is rendering something really big.

My laptop has 8GB because I felt like 4GB was forcing me to close my web browser every time I wanted to game (it had 2GB or less free/cached at any given time).
 
I don't see the reason to keep a page file anymore. This is why I have 12 GB of RAM. RAM is cheap, so why cache crap on a slow disk? No thanks. If you actually dump old technology, then there is a need for the RAM, but if you want to stay in the stone age, then you don't need much because Windows will just constantly cache crap to disk. Plus, why shorten the life of an SSD?
 
Had 2GB thinking it was enough... and now (as of early 2012) I truly believe 4GB is the new minimum for a budget gamer PC (6GB+ if you're running a single 1080p monitor setup)..... anything less is just slow to me, and I don't mind waiting for stuff, but 4GB is soooo much better. It's so much better, I don't see me not upgrading to 8GB soon and maxing out this system.....

4GB-8GB is the way to go, and ram is so cheap (lately) that you might as well get 8GB.
 
Last edited:
grimster said:
I don't see the reason to keep a page file anymore. This is why I have 12 GB of RAM. RAM is cheap, so why cache crap on a slow disk? No thanks. If you actually dump old technology, then there is a need for the RAM, but if you want to stay in the stone age, then you don't need much because Windows will just constantly cache crap to disk. Plus, why shorten the life of an SSD?
Click to expand...

This is gonna start an argument if people read it...

Many programs (and not just old programs) assume the existence of a swap file. If there isn't one, they act up.

Many programs (lookin' at you, 3ds max) ask for massive amounts of memory even if they aren't using it. This gets paged to disk with no penalty instead of filling (i.e. wasting) RAM that could be used for other purposes.

Do you only have an SSD in that system? If not, put the pagefile on a physical drive and set it to 1024MB.
 
Had 8GB of the cheap red Patriot, but bought 4GB of naked Crucial to tide me over during RMA process.

Now I use all 12, the replaced Patriot under-volts nice to 1.5v.

Didn't bother with testing the slowest common settings (neither kit is really 'tighter' than the other, they each win/lose a few categories, so meh), just used XMP and it's all good. The Crucial runs at the Patriot's XMP timings very well (24hrs memtest, 24hrs 1792/1344/90% prime blend).
 
Sovereign said:
This is gonna start an argument if people read it...

Many programs (and not just old programs) assume the existence of a swap file. If there isn't one, they act up.

Many programs (lookin' at you, 3ds max) ask for massive amounts of memory even if they aren't using it. This gets paged to disk with no penalty instead of filling (i.e. wasting) RAM that could be used for other purposes.

Do you only have an SSD in that system? If not, put the pagefile on a physical drive and set it to 1024MB.
Click to expand...

I've never had a problem. I have my swap file forced off. 16Gb RAM takes care of it nicely for me. I never come even close to using it all, granted I hVant used 3D Studio since the DOS days :p
 
Sovereign said:
This is gonna start an argument if people read it...

Many programs (and not just old programs) assume the existence of a swap file. If there isn't one, they act up.

Many programs (lookin' at you, 3ds max) ask for massive amounts of memory even if they aren't using it. This gets paged to disk with no penalty instead of filling (i.e. wasting) RAM that could be used for other purposes.

Do you only have an SSD in that system? If not, put the pagefile on a physical drive and set it to 1024MB.
Click to expand...

1. Windows is perfectly capable of managing memory on its own. A program has no business managing memory, it should just address (tell Windows) what it needs. A program that complains about not having a page file is a flawed one. A program that wants to page will do it on its own, like Photoshop can do.
2. I don't use any programs that pre-allocate tons of RAM. This is a stupid, flawed design.
3. I have an SSD and 6 hard drives. I am still not going to page things.
4. I am fine "wasting" my RAM by keeping "old" pages on there. I bought the RAM to not ever need to page.
5. What the system pages that is "old" and doesn't need to access often, will eventually need to be accessed, and I'd rather keep that in RAM than on a slow disk.
6. I haven't encountered a program yet to bark at me about not having a page file. I don't game, whatsoever, and that's the area where I hear about programs wanting a page file.

Page files defeat the purpose of RAM. They were created when RAM was expensive, and development outpaced RAM and the ability to fit or afford large amounts of it. They were also good for the days of when 4 GB was the limit, as Windows could manage more than 4 GB of virtual memory, but not address more than 4 GB of physical memory. I really don't care to start an argument here, I have run what I run successfully without one issue at all. I just feel if it is such a bad thing, and if Windows wasn't programmed to know how to act with a page file disabled, it wouldn't have an option to disable it. It's not for everyone.
 
HTPC in the bedroom has 2GB, HTPC in the living room has 4GB, and my Workstation/Gaming machine has 16GB....all depends on what you plan on using it for, but yes I agree that 4GB is the sweet spot for price right now.
 
I use 6g and have NO issues. Hell, during a major troubleshooting stage on my PC I only used 2 sticks of my 3 at 4gigs. Even then I had no issues with HD video, games, etc.

I honestly think a lot of the high memory amounts is kinda pointless. Its like a single guy living in a mansion. You're never gonna use all that space, so aside from bragging rights what is the point?
 
Sync said:
Its like a single guy living in a mansion. You're never gonna use all that space, so aside from bragging rights what is the point?
Click to expand...

If I had a mansion I would be able to have different rooms for different purposes. A room for servers. A room for working on the computers. A room for operating on the computer and various electronics crap. A room for movies. A room for musical stuff. A room for taking hallucinogens. Imagine the parties you could have, and people wouldn't have to drive, because you basically have a hotel. Those are the reasons I can think of right now, to make a smartass reply.
 
grimster said:
1. Windows is perfectly capable of managing memory on its own. A program has no business managing memory, it should just address (tell Windows) what it needs. A program that complains about not having a page file is a flawed one. A program that wants to page will do it on its own, like Photoshop can do.
2. I don't use any programs that pre-allocate tons of RAM. This is a stupid, flawed design.
3. I have an SSD and 6 hard drives. I am still not going to page things.
4. I am fine "wasting" my RAM by keeping "old" pages on there. I bought the RAM to not ever need to page.
5. What the system pages that is "old" and doesn't need to access often, will eventually need to be accessed, and I'd rather keep that in RAM than on a slow disk.
6. I haven't encountered a program yet to bark at me about not having a page file. I don't game, whatsoever, and that's the area where I hear about programs wanting a page file.

Page files defeat the purpose of RAM. They were created when RAM was expensive, and development outpaced RAM and the ability to fit or afford large amounts of it. They were also good for the days of when 4 GB was the limit, as Windows could manage more than 4 GB of virtual memory, but not address more than 4 GB of physical memory. I really don't care to start an argument here, I have run what I run successfully without one issue at all. I just feel if it is such a bad thing, and if Windows wasn't programmed to know how to act with a page file disabled, it wouldn't have an option to disable it. It's not for everyone.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I haven't had a page file in years.
 
I might even try for 32 GB on my next build so I can fart around with some RAM disks.

I correct myself. I have run into a problem, and that is with chkdsk. Microsoft, for some reason, feels the need to send the hard drive contents to memory on a full scan. They claim it is not a memory leak, and it is designed to do this, and didn't address this with SP1 for Windows 7. So it crashes. But if I had a page file on my 64 GB SSD, and I tried to run a scan on my multiple-TB RAID array, it would fill up that disk and crash, anyway.
 
Sync said:
I use 6g and have NO issues. Hell, during a major troubleshooting stage on my PC I only used 2 sticks of my 3 at 4gigs. Even then I had no issues with HD video, games, etc.

I honestly think a lot of the high memory amounts is kinda pointless. Its like a single guy living in a mansion. You're never gonna use all that space, so aside from bragging rights what is the point?
Click to expand...

At idle running nothing my system uses 2.5GB or ram. That is - I'm assuming - mostly cache, which is a good thing as it speeds the computer up and makes it smoother.

If I only had 4GB of ram, that would mean that I only have 1.5GB to run programs before it starts purging my caches in order to fit program data. That would suck.

I'd like to be able to keep as much of that cache as possible, so I only have to go to the drive if I absolutely have to.

I've never run Windows 7 on less than 6GB of RAM, but I did run Vista on 2GB once and it was a dreadful experience, constantly swapping to the drive, and moving very slowly.

I agree that my 16GB is overkill. I did it because I could, so I'd never have to worry about RAM.

That being said, I'd consider an entry level utility computer to be a 4GB machine today. 8GB for enthusiast / gaming rigs. Anything over 8GB is just extra peace of mind.
 
16 gig is a waste and never used?

Total 16382
Cached 12409
Available 7106
Free 3609
 
This has come up before.

You may not think you need a page file, but based on everything I've read, it's best to leave it on (even a token size will do as I suggested). Obviously, I'm not going to convince you otherwise since you're of the "I've had no problems, therefore it's good!" mentality, but I'd prefer you not spread bad advice to other users. Particularly when there exists little beyond anecdotes that turning the pagefile off achieves anything positive, while plenty of evidence points to scenarios where not having a pagefile can cause problems.
 
I'm using 8gb ddr3 1600. I started with 4gb, but one of my sticks was bad, so I actually ran only 2gb for around 10 months. It actually worked just fine. Occasionally I would get to 90% memory usage in games, but for the most part things ran quite smoothly. I've been tempted to upgrade to 16gb what with the low memory prices we have been seeing, but I know for fact that I won't use it.
 
16 GGB DDR3, completely unnecessary now, but I plan on keeping this PC for 3 years or longer, and I figured I'd take advantage of the low prices ($76 for 16 GB) on RAM. In ~3 years when you'll probably need or gain benefit from 16 GB of RAM, upgrading will be expensive on phased out DDR3. I anticipate SB/IB being good for gaming for at least 3 years.

Planned future upgrades to this PC:
►IVY Bridge
►2 New Graphics cards over the next 3ish years.
 
Sovereign said:
You may not think you need a page file, but based on everything I've read, it's best to leave it on (even a token size will do as I suggested). Obviously, I'm not going to convince you otherwise since you're of the "I've had no problems, therefore it's good!" mentality, but I'd prefer you not spread bad advice to other users. Particularly when there exists little beyond anecdotes that turning the pagefile off achieves anything positive, while plenty of evidence points to scenarios where not having a pagefile can cause problems.
Click to expand...

Yes, everything YOU read, which leads me to conclude, that you base your decision off of reading, instead of actual tests and results.

It's not a mentality. As I said before, an application has no business managing memory. I can't believe Windows even lets programs do this. Why should a program even have access of knowing whether there is a page file or not, and refuse to work, even if you have plenty of RAM? The only evidence you point to are poorly-written programs.

As I said before, the page file is antiquated. It was created when RAM was expensive, and hard drives were cheap. NOW RAM is dirt cheap. NOW our hardware and software supports having and addressing tons of it. They need to do away with the page file system, and software developers need to lose their control freak mentality, and let things like managing memory up to the OS. They brag about their "genius" and "logic", but in my eyes, they are pretty much the opposite. They are people who can do specialized tasks geniously, but they rarely have any kind of common sense or logic.

If the page file didn't exist until Windows literally ran out of physical RAM, I would maybe not recommend disabling it. But since it caches what IT feels is not important, when the user does need it, it still has to fetch it from a disk.
 
Then show me some tests and results. I'm open to modifying my opinion if you can prove it with facts rather than just blustering and dismissing everything I've linked. When presented with evidence, counter. Don't just talk.

Just because it's "antiquated" and shouldn't be in use anymore doesn't change the fact that it's still around for whatever reason. If it's all the software developers' fault, until they change their tune (as you suggested) it would be unwise to act as if software (poorly written though it may be) doesn't need a page file. And if we don't need a page file, why does Microsoft include it? It sounds like this "apps written poorly" thing has to be dealt with in the same way as UAC tried to force application devs to stop assuming automatic admin rights.

I believe you undermined your own argument.
 
I don't need to prove to anyone, anything. There have been plenty of tests, and things improved, but they brushed them off as "statistically insignificant". The only problems they encountered were the ignorant programs that want a page file.

Why would it be unwise? If the software wants a page file, I won't use it. Simple as that. It's called being a conscious consumer. Would you buy a car that requires certain things of you before it drives, based on someone else's beliefs? I wouldn't, which leaves out all current cars, which carry on at you for not wearing a seat belt. Then you don't have the option of not being shot with air bags from all directions. I don't play games, and this is the only area I've heard of any piece of software complaining about a page file, so that narrows down, even further, the type of people who are programming.

Show me with facts that the page file is absolutely the holy grail and needed. The arguments are always retarded...keep a page file, but you can do away with it if you have enough RAM, but it's still a bad idea, even though nothing but poorly-written CRAP has problems. It's something you have to test for yourself. So in the meantime, you should stop recommending that people not even bother thinking of the idea of trying this. Not once did I tell people that they should just disable their page file. I said how I was running my system, period! It's you delusional psychopaths who put words in other people's mouths to try to get your dead-end points across.
 
Last edited:
I give up. I showed you articles which suggested the necessity of a page file. Instead of finding counter-arguments from competing sources, you insist that all the burden of proof is on me. This in spite of your making claims that are now conveniently impossible to disprove since you won't put them to the test. Your word is law, but I have to post 100 citations? Learn to debate and grow up!

"Plenty of tests" is not proof. "Things have improved" is not proof. "All my evidence was written off but I'm not going to show it to you!" You're worse than a politician--"My rhetoric will overwhelm all his cited proof!"

Your assertion that "[games] are the only area I've heard of any piece of software complaining about a page file" is patently false.

I wouldn't say Autodesk 3ds max is an insignificant program by any means. They suggest maintaining a sufficient swap size in case the user runs out of RAM. This applies to any professional CAD app. Do they not count in your little universe?

Servers, including Windows Server 2008 R2 make use of paging files.

TL;DR - You lose. 99% of users should not touch the page file. Maybe a higher percentage of people @ [H] have verified that not having one will cause no problems, but don't go recommending it just because it works for YOU.
 
Sovereign said:
I give up. I showed you articles which suggested the necessity of a page file. Instead of finding counter-arguments from competing sources, you insist that all the burden of proof is on me. This in spite of your making claims that are now conveniently impossible to disprove since you won't put them to the test. Your word is law, but I have to post 100 citations? Learn to debate and grow up!

"Plenty of tests" is not proof. "Things have improved" is not proof. "All my evidence was written off but I'm not going to show it to you!" You're worse than a politician--"My rhetoric will overwhelm all his cited proof!"

Your assertion that "[games] are the only area I've heard of any piece of software complaining about a page file" is patently false.

I wouldn't say Autodesk 3ds max is an insignificant program by any means. They suggest maintaining a sufficient swap size in case the user runs out of RAM. This applies to any professional CAD app. Do they not count in your little universe?

Servers, including Windows Server 2008 R2 make use of paging files.

PS: If you want to use all your memory turn it into a ram disk and put the page file on it, although that will probably gain you nothing as well but at least it may make you feel better.

TL;DR - You lose. 99% of users should not touch the page file. Maybe a higher percentage of people @ [H] have verified that not having one will cause no problems, but don't go recommending it just because it works for YOU.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with this...it's there for a reason and I guarantee you will not notice any difference when turning it off vs leaving it on. People in the know can turn it off and test it themselves but I would never recommend it to non techies.
 
Yes, they suggested the necessity. In what world is that a definite? Your little pathetic delusional corner is where. As I have been saying...people should do their own tests to come to their own conclusions.

3D Studio Max...why would you be professionally using such a program, yet skimp out on RAM. Again, you are citing something that uses the word suggest... Nowhere are YOU even claiming that program demands a page file.

Again, where did I say that everyone should just disable a page file without coming to their own conclusion in doing so? A server is a totally different story, and there are no "programs" loading up memory. It is all just literally the computer's own resources. Better to have some padding than to run out and crash, in that instance. But a smart person would have a server manage how much in resources each thing can use, and build the machine according to estimated maximum load.

The page file was invented because RAM was expensive, hard drives were cheap, and programming outpaced hardware development. It was a band aid to a problem that doesn't need to exist anymore. It's always so hard for people invested so long into a way of doing things that they are outdated and wrong.
 
grimster said:
Yes, they suggested the necessity. In what world is that a definite? Your little pathetic delusional corner is where. As I have been saying...people should do their own tests to come to their own conclusions.

3D Studio Max...why would you be professionally using such a program, yet skimp out on RAM. Again, you are citing something that uses the word suggest... Nowhere are YOU even claiming that program demands a page file.

Again, where did I say that everyone should just disable a page file without coming to their own conclusion in doing so? A server is a totally different story, and there are no "programs" loading up memory. It is all just literally the computer's own resources. Better to have some padding than to run out and crash, in that instance. But a smart person would have a server manage how much in resources each thing can use, and build the machine according to estimated maximum load.

The page file was invented because RAM was expensive, hard drives were cheap, and programming outpaced hardware development. It was a band aid to a problem that doesn't need to exist anymore. It's always so hard for people invested so long into a way of doing things that they are outdated and wrong.
Click to expand...

If you want to do something more constructive with your memory turn it into a ram disk and put your temp folders or browser cache on it...you'll at least notice a difference vs just shutting off the page file for no reason.
 
I didn't shut it off for no reason. It's not needed, in my case. In my case, meaning I, personally, don't need it, and am not telling everyone that they don't need it. If people would man up and not be cheap, then there would be more people who don't need it. I don't see much point of a RAM disk. I like my computer to start and shut down quickly. If it had to load at startup and write at shutdown these cached files, that's just lag I don't want. Exactly why I, personally, don't like a page file.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top